Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: Disputes Between States and the Federation: Examining the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

In our last discourse on this series, we delved deeper into the constitution of the apex court (Supreme Court) with regards to its membership and how it affects its jurisdiction. We also x-rayed how the subject matter of a case determines a court’s jurisdiction and the conditions precedent to assumption of jurisdiction by a court. Today, we shall continue and conclude on the apex court’s power of jurisdiction and thereafter take a look at the definition of a federation; The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link and the Principles for the Invocation of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Please read on.

“Dispute” For The Purpose Of Invoking the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Continues)

In A.G. OF THE FEDERATION V. A.G, OF ABIA STATE & 35 ORS, (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) pg. 689 at 737 the word ‘dispute’ was defined by my Lord S.M.A. Belgore, J.S.C., C.J.N. (as he then was), as follows: “To my mind, a dispute involves acts of argument, controversy, debate, claims as to rights, whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet. I will not close the category of disputes.” Suit No. S.C. 27/2010: (2011) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1248) 31 at 166-167. A dispute is a conflict of claims or rights or demands on one side met by contrary allegations on the other side.

In A.G ABIA v. A.G FEDERATION, Suit No. SC. 73/2006: (2007) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1029) 200 at 219-220. Tabai, J.S.C. held thus: “With respect to the construction given to the word “dispute”, the opinion of the Court (Per Belgore, J.S.C. as he then was) is quite apposite in determining the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction in this case. On page 701 he said of “dispute” thus: ‘…A dispute is a dispute whether apparent or lingering. It is remarkable that in the counter-claims to the suit some States have admitted there is a dispute. This Court in Attorney- General of Bendel State V. Attorney-General of The Federation; (1981) 10 S.C. 1; (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1 Attorney-General of The Federation V. Attorney-General of Imo State, (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178 set out clearly what is a dispute to the extent of using authoritative English dictionary. To my mind, a dispute involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, and claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.’”

The same Belgore, J.S.C. (as he then was) had earlier in A.G, OF THE FEDERATION v. A.G OF ABIA STATE, & 35 ORS (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (PL. 725) 689 at 737, held, inter alia, that the term dispute as used in section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution “…Involves acts of arguments, controversy, debate, claims as to rights whether in law or fact, varying opinions, whether passive or violent or any disagreement that can lead to public anxiety or disquiet.”

In his view, C.J.N. (rtd.) in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & 35 Ors Ibid, at pp 728-729, adumbrated as follows:
“What constitutes a dispute under Section 212 subsection (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, which has exactly the same provisions as Section 232 subsection (1) in question had been considered by this Court in the cases of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 22 ORS, (1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 1, and A.G OF THE FEDERATION V. A.-G OF IMO STATE & 2 ORS. (1983) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 239; (1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 178. In ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE’S case, Bello, J.S.C., (as he then was), stated as follows on pp. 48 to 49 thereof:- “To invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court there must be a dispute as so qualified between the Federation and a State or between States. The issue of jurisdiction was contested on three grounds Firstly, there is no dispute which affected the interest of the Federation and Bendel State between the plaintiff (Bendel State) and the Federation, Secondly, I think the first point may be easily disposed of from the definition of the word “dispute, The Oxford Universal Dictionary defines it as ‘the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion… I also held as follows on p. 320 thereof. It is a well-established principle of the interpretation of the Constitution that the words of a Constitution are not to be read with stultifying narrowness- UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, and NAFIA RABIU V KANO STATE (1980) 8-11 S.C. 130 at pp. 148-149. The word ‘dispute in section 212(1) should therefore be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the purpose of that section on the Constitution. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2nd Edition, provides that “dispute is synonymous with controversy, quarrel, argument, disagreement and contention.”

Disputes Between States And The Federation: The Legal Position
Section 232 (1) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between States and the Federation. In order to appreciate this provision, it is expedient to examine what a Federation means.

“Federation”- Meaning

In A.G LAGOS STATE v. AG FEDERATION & ORS, 2014) LPELR-22701(SC), at pp 129-130, Pars A-A. Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC on the definition of “Federation”, held thus:
“Section 318 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) defines “Federation” as follows: “Federation means the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” In A.G. Kano State vs A.G. Federation, Ibid this Court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC, relying on the definition of “Federation” within the meaning of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, which bears the same meaning in Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution, differentiated between Federation (or the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the Federal Government thus: Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution under which the word “Federation” was defined is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution now under consideration. I therefore respectfully adopt the definition of the word “Federation” in Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution as bearing the same meaning as the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria.’ By this meaning…all the complaints of the plaintiff in its statement of claim in the present case must be viewed as being against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 232 of the Constitution. In other words, any complaint against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of Police as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff in his address before this Court, is completely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court.”

“The Federation” Vs “Federal Government of Nigeria”: The Link

For a better understanding of the meaning of the word “Federation”, the Supreme Court, per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC, only recently emphasized the distinction between the “Federal Government of Nigeria” and the “Federation” in A.G OF KADUNA STATE & ORS v. A.G OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2023) LPELR-59936(SC); at Pp 22 – 24 Paras F – C., thus:
“So much heavy weather is made about the distinction between the Federation and the Government of Nigeria that exercises its executive powers. That distinction no doubt has a constitutional basis. But since the Government of the Federation exercises the executive powers of the Federation, there is, legally and practically speaking, hardly a dividing line between the acts of the Government of the Federation and the acts of the Federation. The distinction does not exist to the extent of turning the Government of the Federation into a sovereign that can act without regard to the Federation. The Government of the Federation is not sovereign. It is a creation of the Constitution for the purpose of exercising the executive powers of the Federation. The Federation is inherently the sovereign and its sovereignty is further established by S.2(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that- (1) Nigeria shall be one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The sovereignty enjoyed by the Federation is owned by several individual persons constituting the people of the Federation of Nigeria who own the lands that together form the territory of Nigeria. S. 14(2) of the 1999 Constitution acknowledges this ownership by declaring that- (a) Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority. (b) The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government, and (c) The participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.”

The implication of the above decisions is that, for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction, it must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or between States.

Principles For The Invocation Of The Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court
Many actions between states and the Federation have failed as a result of the failure to appreciate the thin line that grounds the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court laid this confusion to rest in the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION, (2007) LPELR-24343(SC) where, per, WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC, held at pages 95 – 97, Paras F – C), that:
“The Constitution is very clear on when the Supreme Court will invoke its original jurisdiction on a matter. Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution provides: “232(1) the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. (To be continued).

Thought For The Week

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever”. (William Howard Taft).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

A Vindicating Truth: A Factual Presentation on the Supreme Court’s Intervention in the ADC Leadership Matter

Published

on

By

By Comrade IG Wala

To All Nigerians, Party Stakeholders, and Lovers of Democracy,

In the life of every great political movement, there comes a moment where the noise of confusion meets the silence of the Law. For the African Democratic Congress (ADC), that moment arrived on April 30, 2026.

For months, the ADC was held in a state of judicial paralysis caused by a lower court order that froze the party’s activities. This order did not just affect a few leaders, it threatened to delete the ADC from the Nigerian political map and disenfranchise millions of supporters ahead of the 2027 General Elections.

Today, we present the facts of the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure that every Nigerian, from the city centers to the grassroots, understands that Justice has spoken, and the ADC is alive.

The Three Pillars of the Supreme Court’s Ruling:

1. The End of Paralysis (The Status Quo Order)!

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, was clear and firm: the Court of Appeal’s order to maintain a “status quo” was improper and unwarranted. The apex court recognized that you cannot freeze a political party indefinitely without a trial. By setting this aside, the Supreme Court rescued the ADC from a leadership vacuum that was being used to justify de-recognition by INEC.

2. The Restoration of Administrative Legitimacy.

By nullifying the appellate court’s freeze, the Supreme Court effectively restored the David Mark-led National Working Committee to its rightful place. This means that for all official, administrative, and electoral purposes, the ADC now has a recognized head. The party is no longer a ship without a captain; the doors of the headquarters are open, and the party’s name remains firmly on the ballot.

3. The Order for a Fresh Trial on Merits.

True to the principles of fair hearing, the Supreme Court did not simply gift the party to one side. Instead, it ordered the case back to the Federal High Court for an accelerated hearing. This is a victory for the Truth. It means the court is not interested in technicalities or stopping the clock, it wants to see the evidence, read the Party Constitution, and deliver a final judgment based on the Right vs. Wrong.

Note: I will drop the 7 prayers made to Supreme Court by ADC in the comment section.

A Message to Our Members and Supporters.
To our members who have felt a sense of fear, apprehension, or a lack of confidence in the Nigerian courts, let your hearts be at peace.

It is a delusion to believe that gross injustice can simply walk through the doors of our highest courts unnoticed. This matter is currently one of the most publicized and people-centric cases in Nigeria. In such a bright spotlight, the Judiciary acts not just as a judge, but as a shield for the common man.

The Law is not a tool for the crafty, it is a searchlight for the Truth.
Inasmuch as they say the Law is blind, it sees with perfect clarity the difference between a lie and the truth, between right and wrong. The Supreme Court’s refusal to let the ADC be strangled by procedural delays is proof that the system works for those who stand on the side of justice.

Our confidence is not in personalities, but in the Process. We are returning to the Federal High Court not with fear, but with the armor of Truth.

The Handshake remains strong, the vision is clear, and our participation in the 2027 elections is now legally anchored.

Stand tall. The ADC has been tested by the fire of the courts, and we have emerged not just intact, but vindicated.

Signed,
Comrade, IG Wala.
02/04/26. — with Shareef Kamba and 14 others.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Police is Your Friend and Other Lies We No Longer Believe

Published

on

By

By Boma Lilian Braide (Esq.)

There was a time in Nigeria when the phrase The Police is Your Friend was not a national joke. It was a civic assurance, a symbolic handshake between the state and its citizens. It represented the ideal of a civil security architecture built on trust, service, and protection. Today, that once reassuring slogan has decayed into a bitter irony. It no longer evokes safety; it provokes fear. It no longer signals partnership; it signals danger. What should have been the soul of Nigerian civil state relations has become a cruel parody of our lived experience at checkpoints, stations, and on the streets.

The Nigerian security apparatus has undergone a transformation so profound that it now resembles a predatory machine rather than a protective institution. The sight of a police patrol vehicle, which should ordinarily bring comfort, now triggers anxiety. Citizens instinctively brace themselves, not for assistance, but for extortion, harassment, or violence. We are not merely witnessing isolated incidents of misconduct. We are watching a pattern of state enabled brutality unfold in real time, a pattern so consistent that it feels like a televised execution of the social contract. In this grim theatre, the Nigerian state often appears not as the protector but as the principal aggressor.

On Sunday, April 26th 2026, the quiet air of Effurun in Delta State was shattered by the crack of a service pistol. What should have been an ordinary Sunday afternoon became the final chapter in the life of twenty-eight year old Mene Ogidi. A viral video, barely two minutes long, captured the horrifying scene. Ogidi sat on the dusty ground, his hands tied behind him with a rope. He was unarmed, exhausted, and pleading in his mother tongue for a chance to explain himself. Standing over him was a man in plain clothes, a man sworn to protect the very life he was about to extinguish. Assistant Superintendent of Police Nuhu Usman raised his pistol and fired two shots at close range into the body of a restrained, helpless citizen.

This was not a confrontation. It was not a crossfire. It was not a struggle for a weapon. It was an execution. A daylight assassination carried out by a state paid officer who felt so insulated by impunity that he performed his violence in front of a digital audience. The collective outrage that followed was not simply about one death. It was the eruption of a nation that has watched this script repeat itself far too many times.

Barely days later, in Dei-Dei Abuja, another life was cut short. A National Youth Service Corps member was shot inside his father’s compound. Authorities described it as a mistake during a crossfire, but the silence that followed spoke louder than any official explanation. These tragedies are not anomalies. They are symptoms of a deep institutional rot, a rot that has turned the badge into a license for violence rather than a symbol of service.

Extrajudicial killings in Nigeria represent a direct assault on the fundamental right to life and the presumption of innocence. When a law enforcement officer assumes the roles of accuser, judge, and executioner, the very foundation of the state begins to crumble. In the case of Mene Ogidi, the Delta State Police Command admitted that the officer acted in gross violation of Force Order 237, the regulation governing the use of firearms. This admission is significant because it reveals that the problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the collapse of discipline, the erosion of accountability, and the entrenchment of a culture of impunity.

Between 2020 and 2025, Nigerian security agencies were implicated in nearly six hundred violent incidents against civilians, resulting in more than eight hundred deaths. The Nigeria Police Force accounted for over half of these fatalities. These numbers paint a disturbing picture. The institutions funded by taxpayers to provide security have become one of the greatest threats to their safety.

The psychology behind this brutality is rooted in the absence of consequences. When officers believe that nothing will happen after they pull the trigger, the threshold for using lethal force drops to zero. In the Effurun case, reports suggest that the suspect was even transported to a station after the initial shooting, only to be shot again. This level of cruelty reflects a complete dehumanization of the citizenry. The victim is no longer seen as a person with rights. He becomes a disposable suspect. This mindset is a legacy of the defunct SARS unit, whose methods and mentality continue to shape policing culture. Rebranding SARS into SWAT or the Rapid Response Squad means nothing if the same men, trained in the same violent ethos, continue to operate with the same predatory instincts.

The Nigerian police system has evolved from a flawed institution into what many citizens now describe as a state sponsored cartel. The Zero Tolerance mantra often repeated by the Inspector General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has become a public relations slogan that evaporates at every checkpoint. The immediate dismissal and recommended prosecution of ASP Usman and his team may satisfy the public’s immediate hunger for justice, but it does not address the deeper institutional vacuum that allowed an officer to believe he could execute a restrained suspect without consequence. If accountability only occurs when a video goes viral, then we are not being policed. We are being hunted by a uniformed gang that is occasionally caught on camera.

This raises critical questions. Where were the superior officers? Where was the Area Commander while this culture of execution was taking root? Command responsibility in Nigeria remains a myth. Until a Commissioner of Police is removed for the actions of their subordinates, there will be no internal incentive to reform. The decay is structural. We are recruiting frustrated individuals, training them in aggression rather than professionalism, and unleashing them on a population they are conditioned to view with suspicion and contempt.

The mistake narrative used in the Abuja NYSC shooting reflects this tactical incompetence. A professional force does not mistake a youth corper in his bedroom for a combatant. Nigerians are effectively subsidising their own endangerment, paying for the bullets that cut down their brightest young citizens. A nation cannot survive this level of uniformed recklessness. The state has lost its monopoly on violence to its own agents. When police officers fear the citizen’s camera more than they respect the citizen’s life, the system has failed.

Five years after the historic 2020 End SARS protests, the systemic reforms promised by government remain largely unfulfilled. Only a handful of states have implemented the recommendations of the judicial panels or compensated victims. The National Human Rights Commission reported in July 2025 that it had received over three hundred thousand complaints of abuses. This staggering figure reflects the scale of the crisis. While the current Inspector General has introduced new regulations to align the Police Act of 2020 with operational realities, the gap between a gazetted document in Abuja and a patrol team in Delta remains vast.

The solution to this bloodletting must be radical and structural. First, police oversight must be decentralised. Relying on Force Headquarters in Abuja to discipline an officer in a remote community is inefficient and ineffective. Each state should have an independent, citizen led oversight board with the authority to recommend immediate suspension and prosecution without interference from the police hierarchy.

Second, Force Order 237 must be overhauled to strictly limit the use of firearms to situations where there is an immediate and verifiable threat to life. Under no circumstances should a restrained or surrendering suspect be shot.

Third, Nigeria must address the mental health and welfare of police officers. Men who live in dilapidated barracks, earn inadequate wages, and operate under constant stress are more likely to lash out at the public. However, poverty cannot be an excuse for murder. Welfare reform must go hand in hand with strict accountability.

Finally, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The trial of ASP Usman and others like him should be public, transparent, and swift. It must serve as a deterrent that resonates in every police station across the country. The era of secret disciplinary rooms must end. Nigeria must invest in technology driven policing, not only in weapons but in body cameras and digital accountability systems. When officers know they are being recorded, hesitation replaces recklessness.

A NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION

The era of Orderly Room secrecy must end. Nigeria must decentralise police disciplinary trials, moving them from closed sessions in Abuja to open, civilian led inquiries in the states where the abuses occur. A National Firearms Audit is urgently needed. Every officer must account for every round issued, and any missing ammunition should trigger automatic suspension for the entire chain of command.

The National Assembly must fast track the Victims of Police Brutality Trust Fund, ensuring that compensation becomes a legal right funded directly from the budgets of offending commands. Nigeria must stop being a nation of post script outrage. Command responsibility must become law. If an officer under a Commissioner’s watch executes a handcuffed suspect, that Commissioner must lose their job alongside the shooter.

The blood of Mene Ogidi and the NYSC member in Dei Dei is a stain on our national conscience. It is a reminder that as long as one Nigerian can be tied up and shot without trial, no Nigerian is truly safe. Silence is no longer an option. Waiting for the next viral video is no longer acceptable. The time to demand change is now.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Kwankwaso-Obi Anti-Coalition Alliance and the Perception of the North

Published

on

By

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba

Let’s not sugarcoat it, what is unfolding is not just political maneuvering for 2027, but a carefully calculated roadmap to 2031. Anyone who believes Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso is acting out of patriotism or prioritizing Nigeria above his personal ambition is simply ignoring the pattern before us. His willingness to deputise Peter Obi is not born out of ideological alignment or national interest, it appears to be a strategic move aimed at one target weakening Atiku Abubakar and ensuring he does not emerge as president in 2027.

Kwankwaso’s real calculation seems anchored in 2031. He understands that as long as Atiku remains active and contesting, his own presidential ambition struggles to gain traction, especially in the North where Atiku’s influence remains deeply rooted. By positioning himself in a way that could undermine Atiku now, he potentially clears the path for himself later, when he can conveniently lean on the “it is the turn of the North” narrative with stronger moral leverage. This is not about helping Obi win, it is about ensuring Atiku is completely removed from the equation.

It is also important to state plainly that Kwankwaso is fully aware of his electoral limitations in this arrangement. He knows he cannot significantly attract Northern votes for Obi beyond a few pockets, even within Kano State. And even there, the good people of Kano are far more politically aware and discerning than to be swayed purely by sentiment. This makes the entire proposition even more questionable, if the electoral value is limited, then the intention behind the alliance becomes even clearer. It suggests that even if he joins an Obi ticket, it is not driven by a genuine commitment to Obi, the Igbo, the South-East or Nigeria but by a broader personal calculation.

Northerners must understand that this is a long game, and every move appears deliberately designed. Kwankwaso seems cautious not to overtly confirm growing suspicions that he is working, directly or indirectly, to the advantage of Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet, many are beginning to connect the dots. The belief that there is an underlying alignment is gaining ground, especially when actions repeatedly result in one outcome, a divided North that weakens its collective electoral strength, a repeatation of 2023 in a different style. The alignment of Kwankwaso’s political godson and the governor of Kano Abba Kabir Yusuf with Tinubu only fuels this perception, suggesting a dual-front approach: one operating directly and visibly, the other indirectly and subtly.

This is not the first time such a pattern is being observed. Many Northerners still recall similar dynamics from 2023, and recent developments have only intensified the conversation. In fact, within just the last 24 hours, the level of criticism and open dissatisfaction directed at Kwankwaso across Northern Nigeria has been unprecedented. What was once dismissed as mere suspicion of a quiet alliance is now, in the eyes of many, being confirmed by actions seen as disruptive to any meaningful coalition.

For Kwankwaso, this moment carries significant weight. The long-circulating “sellout” label, which many had hesitated to firmly attach, now appears to be finding a resting place in public discourse. Should he once again position himself outside a collective Northern arrangement, that perception may become permanently entrenched.

The implications for the North are serious. Voting Obi because of Kwankwaso, which is unlikely, could fracture an already consolidated political base, reduce its bargaining power, and ultimately produce outcomes that do not reflect its true strength. The North has never historically rejected a dominant figure like Atiku in favor of a subordinate position, nor has it embraced a configuration where its most established candidate is sidelined. The idea that the region would choose Kwankwaso as a deputy while overlooking Atiku as a president is not just improbable, it runs contrary to established Northern political behavior.

What is at stake goes beyond individual ambition. The North is fully conscious of the stakes and increasingly resolute in its direction. There is a growing determination to stand firmly behind its own Atiku Abubakar, to protect its collective political strength, and to resist any arrangement that appears designed to divide it. The signals are clear, the North has decided, and it will not fall into what many perceive as calculated traps, whether from Kwankwaso or from forces seen as working against its cohesion and democratic leverage….

Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba writes from Kano, and can be reached via drssbaba@yahoo.com

Continue Reading

Trending